Contrary to what Sen. Innis says small businesses actually support increasing the minimum wage.

“A July 2015 survey found that 3 out of 5 small business owners with employees support a gradual increase in the minimum wage to $12. The survey reports that small business owners say an increase ‘would immediately put more money in the pocket of low-wage workers who will then spend the money on things like housing, food, and gas. This boost in demand for goods and services will help stimulate the economy and help create opportunities,’” stated the Department of Labor in a recent blog post.

The average Wal-Mart shopper would end up paying less than $.50 cents per visit to ensure that all Wal-Mart employees made at least $12 an hour. We are talking about $1 a month in additional costs. That increase will hardly break your wallet.

Lastly, can we finally stop promoting this lie that all minimum and low-wage workers are teenagers! The facts just do not support this and common sense proves it cannot possibly be true.

Think about it: when you buy a coffee on your way into work is it a teenager at the counter? Who is working the counter at McDonalds when you go to buy lunch?

Odds say that the answer to both question are that it is a woman over the age of 25.

Below is a snapshot of who in New Hampshire would be affected if we raised the minimum wage to $12 by 2020. For example, 93,000 workers over the age of 20 would see a raise in wages, compared to the 22,000 below age 20.

What does the Humane Society of the United States, a Super Bowl ad, Dr. Evil, Peter T. Paul college of business and economics at UNH and a sudden USDA data purge have in common? Settle in and get out your graph paper.

Are you angry or confused about the Humane Society now? Before you jump to any conclusions, let me tell you about the political hacks that produced the ad, why I think it happened, and how this duplicitous ad relates to New Hampshire politics.

Where The Advertisement Came From

The two-minute ad was created by HumaneWatch.org, a “project” of the Center for Consumer Freedom. According to their website, HumaneWatch.org is “Keeping a watchful eye on the Humane Society of the United States.”

In reality, the Center for Consumer Freedom is nothing more than one of many PR websites for a non-profit front group created by Rick Berman and Company, and is designed to spread misinformation or outright lies about the Humane Society.

If truth in advertising mattered, the more accurate name for Mr. Berman’s operations could be Lies R Us! Mr. Berman revels in marketing and selling lies.

Wearing one of his many highly paid PR hats, talking to energy executives in 2014,

“Mr. Berman said in his speech, (companies) must be willing to exploit emotions like fear, greed and anger and turn them against the environmental groups. And major corporations secretly financing such a campaign should not worry about offending the general public because “you can either win ugly or lose pretty.” (New York Times, 2014)

Rick Berman, aka Dr. Evil, is the CEO of Berman and Company, a D.C. based public relations firm that specializes in taking money from corporations and industry lobbyists to create a PR campaign against proposed legislation.

“Masquerading as a legitimate non-profit organization, the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) is a front group for corporations trying to thwart animal welfare, environmental, and other public interest reforms,” stated the website WhoAttacksHSUS.org.

Berman creates a non-profit front group, which is funded with dark/secret money from his corporate friends, and then he pays himself to run the non-profit as their Executive Director.

“According to CCF’s 2008 tax filing, 92 percent of all revenue taken in by CCF went straight into the pockets of Berman and his for-profit PR firm which appears to be nothing less than a personal enrichment scheme,” added WhoAttacksHSUS.org.

The non-profit front group then creates a website and funds researchers in their think-tanks to manufacture reports that lobbyists can then use to sway legislators and push in op-eds against the proposed legislation.

Berman then goes on TV, using any one of his dozens of non-profit Executive Director titles, to push his propaganda through the media as the “opposing view.” Berman never discloses that he is being paid by corporations and industry lobbyists to spread his misinformation.

So why did Berman, a paid shill for the industry, come out and attack the Humane Society of the United States on national television?

One reason is because the Humane Society Legislative Fund came out hard against Donald Trump in the 2016 election. This was the first time in their history the Humane Society of the US has ever endorsed a Presidential candidate. They released this ad in early October that stated a “Trump presidency would be a threat to animals everywhere.”

In their endorsement of Hillary Clinton, HSLF President Michael Markarian wrote:

“One ticket has a clear, compelling record of support for animal protection, while the other has assembled a team of advisors and financial supporters tied in with trophy hunting, puppy mills, factory farming, horse slaughter, and other abusive industries.”

Beside retaliating against the Humane Society for their support of Hillary, Berman needed to undermine the reputation of the Humane Society of the US before they came out swinging against an Orwellian action taken by the USDA just before Super Bowl weekend.

Brian Klippenstein, Executive Director of Protect the Harvest, and a long time enemy of the Humane Society of the US, was tapped to lead Trump’s transition team for the USDA. Elections have consequences and on Feb 3 the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) suddenly removed the public’s access to thousands of documents detailing what facilities are keeping animals and “whether those animals are being treated humanely under the Animal Welfare Act.”

Wayne Pacelle, CEO of the US Humane Society, said in a radio interview with The Attitude with Arnie Arnesen, that the USDA inspects “over 9,000” facilities a year ranging from local zoos, traveling circuses, research laboratories, and dog breeding facilities or so-called “puppy mills.”

While this specific ad may be in response to the attacks on Donald Trump, the feud between Berman and Company and the Humane Society goes farther back than the 2016 elections. Berman also created a few different front-groups to attack the Humane Society and animal welfare groups over the past decade.

According to the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, under the Center for Consumer Freedom, Berman created:

Maternity Pens – Maternity Pens is project that “defends the use of gestation crates used by pork producers and criticizes the arguments of animal rights activists.”

The Humane Society for Shelter Pets – The Humane Society for Shelter Pets “complements the work of the Center for Consumer Freedom’s HumaneWatch by encouraging the public to donate to local animal shelters instead of the Humane Society of the United States.”

PETA Kills Animals – PETA Kills Animals is a project “that smears People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and promotes negative information about the group’s practices.”

Got an issue you want to kill, Berman has a think-tank for you.

How Does Joe Sabia, Peter T Paul, and Berman Connect To New Hampshire?

Now that we understand who Rick Berman is, how his PR firm is paid to create opposing views to major legislative initiatives, and the model they use to create their research, let look at how this connects to the University of New Hampshire and the Peter T. Paul College of Business and Economics.

This raised a few red flags, as Sabia is one of Berman’s most quoted economists against raising the minimum wage.

As one of Berman’s researchers, Sabia collected over $200,000 dollars in grant money, to say the minimum wage would hurt low-wage workers and ultimately kill jobs.

Berman’s Employment Policies Institute pushed Sabia’s work directly to lobbyist from the National Restaurant Association, the Chamber of Commerce, Americans for Prosperity, and the National Federation of Independent Business to convince lawmakers to oppose any wage increases.

“One of [Sabia’s] seven studies for EPI concluded New York’s 2004 minimum-wage hike led to a significant decline in employment for 16-to-29-year-olds without high school diplomas and projected more than 16,000 lost jobs.

That study got particular attention in the Times’ report because University of Delaware economist Saul D. Hoffman reviewed the same data and found it lacking.”

“Mr. Hoffman concluded that the narrow cut of data Mr. Sabia picked was perhaps unintentionally skewed, and once corrected, it would have showed that the 2004 increase in New York State’s minimum wage had no negative impact on employment — the opposite of the conclusion the institute had proclaimed in its news releases.”

After Paul donated $25 million to UNH, the Whittemore School of Business was renamed after Paul, ie. The Peter T. Paul College of Business and Economics.

Judith Blake, Peter’s partner ran for the University’s Board of Trustees the same year he made the $25 million donation and won election to the Board.

Just this year, Blake donated $8 million dollars with the vast majority to go for scholarships to Peter T. Paul College of Business and Economics. (The terms of the scholarships have not been publicly disclosed as of this writing.)

* What did Paul College Dean, Deborah Merrill-Sands, know about Sabia before hiring him?

Q: How have your international experiences informed your perspective as an academic leader?

A: I’ve spent almost two decades working on issues of rural poverty around the world. When you are exposed to such profound poverty for a long time, you gain a much broader perspective on the vital role of business in society. I learned quickly that government wasn’t enough and saw the impact of the private sector in economic and social development.

As a dean in a business school, I believe it’s important to understand the positive impact of business while not getting swept away by the power of greed. We still need ethics and accountability.

* Is there some type of ethics violation by Sabia to be paid by Berman’s anti-minimum wage front group to produce research that benefits Berman’s corporate donors?

* Did his anti-minimum wage research play a roll in his hiring by the Peter T Paul College of Business and Economics?

The Connection To NH Politics

Peter T. Paul was the billionaire backer of Dan Innis the former Dean of the UNH Business School. Innis courted Paul to donate to the school, Innis left the position of Dean to run for U.S Congress in 2014. Peter T Paul created a Super PAC with at least $500,000 to fund Innis’ primary campaign. Despite the large cash support Innis lost his 2014 bid against incumbent Rep Frank Guinta.

Peter T Paul (UNH Photo Services)

In 2016, Peter T. Paul once again helped to fund Innis. This time the Paul Super PAC refocused on state races, just as Innis flipped from running for Congress to making a run for NH State Senate. Innis won and is now pushing Right to Work (for less) and opposing an increase in the NH Minimum Wage.

By far the most important questions are: What is next for the Peter T. Paul College of Business and Economics? Will the college become a shill for Berman and Company using Sabia’s work to denounce raising the minimum wage in New Hampshire and throughout the country?

Is hiring Sabia and pushing Innis into the NH Senate all part of Peter T Paul’s plan to reshape New Hampshire politics to mirror his own right-wing ideology?

We already know that attempts have been made by billionaires like the Koch Brothers, Arthur Pope, and Betsy DeVos to highjack our political system. They use their unlimited funds to rig the system against working people and to foster their own personal greed.

It is vital that people understand who is pushing these lies that the minimum wage kills jobs and that inhumane treatment of animals should be ignored. It is all connected.

Big Business and billionaires are using people like Berman to deceive you and we must put a stop to it.

We must have answers to these questions. This is our college, funded with our tax dollars, and we demand answers.

A person familiar with the man whose data-driven approach animated his work at UNH’s Paul School of Business could have been forgiven for being surprised by the approach taken by the Dan Innis since his election to the New Hampshire Senate in November. HIs approach to chairing the Commerce Committee in a packed Representatives’ Hall provides an example. In the face of data, anecdote, and personal testimonials, Innis seemed deaf to any criticism of controversial right-to-work legislation being heard by the committee. Impatient with testimony from over 100 labor leaders, small businessmen, and economists and eager to defend the endorsements of SB 11 by lobbyists and national right-wing activists, Innis seemed, not only to have his mind made up, but unwilling to listen to any facts that might change it.

Chairman Innis also used his new position to encourage his fellow senators to put any concerns which might have arisen during the four hours of public testimony that they had just heard out of their minds. With gavel in hand, Chairman Innis shut down debate among his colleagues after a mere hour and got the result he wanted. The committee recommended that the full Senate pass the Koch Bros. number one legislative priority for the states. Republican orthodoxy and right-wing ideology had overcome the opposition of a vast majority of attendees at the Senate hearing, with Sen. Innis’s support.

Sen. Innis’s unlikely emergence as a right-wing champion hasn’t been limited to his work as a committee chair. He also put his support behind legislation that allows anyone to carry a concealed weapon by sponsoring SB12. This bill, which was opposed by police chiefs and public safety advocates throughout the state, passed the Senate days after a freshman GOP legislator inadvertently dropped a gun on the floor during a House hearing on the measure.

A glance over the legislation Innis has sponsored this year further demonstrates that the hotelier and academic would NOT serve as a moderate Republican in the mode of Nancy Stiles, his GOP predecessor in District 24, but rather as an ideological, Tea Party legislator. Another example is a bill he is sponsoring entitled SB44, an act prohibiting the state from requiring implementation of Common Core standards. Common Core, a set of educational goals and measurements developed by state and local governments to make comparisons between school results clearer and to designed to measure both student learning and critical thinking skills, has become a favorite target of right-wingers from Glenn Beck (who wrote a sci-fi novel suggesting an enslaved future thanks to Common Core) to legislators and activists who fear that Common Core teaching leads to homosexuality.

These may merely be the efforts of a freshman legislator to court his party’s far-right base, but in a year with a new governor who seems equally susceptible to trends among the national right-wing, his votes have consequences. Seacoast voters would be well advised to ignore the Dan Innis who has carefully cultivated a reputation as a reasonable community leader and pay close attention the Dan Innis who is voting in Concord. They might not recognize him, but they should recognize the impact of the right-wing voting record he is compiling.

Friends of [House Speaker] John Boehner: $2,000 contribution to Guinta for the 2016 primary election, another $2,000 for the 2016 general election – both contributions given on March 20, 2015.

The Freedom Project, John Boehner’s Leadership PAC: $5,000 contribution to Guinta for the 2016 primary, another $5,000 for the general election – both contributions given on March 20, 2015.

[House Majority Leader] Kevin McCarthy for Congress campaign committee: $2,000 contribution to Guinta for the 2016 primary election, another $2,000 for the 2016 general election – both contributions given on March 26, 2015.

Majority Committee PAC, Kevin McCarthy’s Leadership PAC: $5,000 contribution to Guinta for the 2016 primary, another $5,000 for the general election – both contributions given on March 26, 2015.

[House Majority Whip Steve] Scalise for Congress campaign committee: $2,000 contribution for the 2016 general election – given on March 27, 2015.

Eye of the Tiger PAC, Steve Scalise’s Leadership PAC: $5,000 contribution for the 2016 primary election – given on March 27, 2015.

CMR PAC, the Leadership PAC of House Republican Conference Chairman Cathy McMorris Rodgers: $2,500 for the 2016 primary election – given on March 31, 2015.

Prosperity Action PAC, the Leadership PAC of House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Paul Ryan: $5,000 for the 2016 primary election – given on March 26, 2015.

It was unanimous.Not a single member of House GOP Leadership failed to make a contribution to Frank Guinta – directly, through their PAC, or both – during the weeks immediately before Guinta agreed to pay his fine to the FEC. Contributions not just for the 2016 general election, but also for the 2016 primary – when Guinta would, presumably, be running against another Republican.

Gotta wonder how former NHGOP Finance Chair Dan Innis feels, about the fact that the entire House GOP Leadership has already contributed to his opponent in the race.

BEDFORD – Today, members of the Professional Fire Fighters of New Hampshire gathered to make the recommendation of Dan Innis in the first Congressional District Republican primary. The Professional Fire Fighters of New Hampshire believe that Mr. Innis is the best choice in the first Congressional District Republican primary, and recommend that Republican members vote for him in the State Primary on September 9th. No endorsement has been made in this district’s General Election race in November.

“Dan Innis has made it clear that he values working families in New Hampshire. The professional fire fighters in Bedford, and throughout this district, are hopeful to have this candidate be the nominee in September, because we believe he cares strongly for public safety,” said Jeff Humphrey, President of the Bedford IAFF Local #3639.

“The PFFNH believes that Mr. Innis is the candidate in this primary who understands that fire fighters need support and resources to do our jobs of insuring we keep the public safe. He is the candidate who values public safety. We are proud to endorse Dan Innis in the first Congressional District Republican Primary,” stated David Lang, President of the Professional Fire Fighters of New Hampshire.

“Fire fighters risk their lives with every call and we need to make sure that we keep our promises to them” said Dan Innis. “I am proud to have earned the support of the Professional Fire Fighters of New Hampshire. In Congress I will work closely with them to make sure that fire fighters have the resources and the support that they need to continue to protect our communities.”

The Professional Fire Fighters of New Hampshire, headquartered in Concord, NH represents more than 2,000 active and retired fire fighters and paramedics from 43 locals across the state. More information is available at www.pffnh.org. Follow us on twitter @pffnh

On October 1, 2003 we announced that our participants had chosen New Hampshire as the future Free State. New Hampshire’s small population factored heavily in the selection process. Our research showed that 20,000 activists can heavily influence states, like New Hampshire, with populations of less than 1.5 million and our early movers report that even a few hundred can make a significant difference.

As for his Super PAC, Paul said he has never been involved politically before. “I prefer to watch.” So when he “dipped his toe” in the political waters at the end of January by setting up the NH Priorities PAC, a $500,000 Super PAC, it was primarily to help Innis… The PAC is also considering donating to like-minded candidates in more local races, such as the state Senate. “I like New Hampshire,” Paul said. “Because it is more manageable in size.”

In an effort to distance himself from his opponents, mainly former Congressman Frank Guinta, he touted his business experience and the fact that he has never run for office before.

“People I know and respect have told me this is a good thing for me to do because of my background and experience, and the fact that I haven’t been a politician,” Innis said.

I respect the outsider approach, but if you have no experience in politics why would anyone support you? Would you hire a plumber who has never sweat pipes, or vented a sewer line? I think a business owner would know that.

“Innis believes his success as a business owner and administrator of a large institution would play well in the general election.”

Secondly, I am of the opinion that running a profitable business does not make someone a good person to lead government. The government is not a business; government agencies are not trying to make a profit. The function of government is to provide services to the community – not to return a profit to stockholders. Government helps people; it provides roads and bridges to facilitate commerce; it ensures public safety; it protects the environment, which protects our children and our tourism industries. Government doesn’t make widgets, and it’s not supposed to be a profit-making enterprise.

Other than those two things, Dan Innis is just like CREW’s most corrupt politician, Frank Guinta.

“His positions on issues like Obamacare, the economy, deficits, taxes, regulation and immigration are consistent with the Republican Party platform. He would vote to repeal Obamacare, cut taxes, reduce regulation, and bar any path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.”

The party of “No” continues:

No on Obamacare (even though it is working, and saving people lots of money)

No roadmap to citizenship (sorry, you 11,000,000 people: your decades of waiting were for nothing, we hope your employers don’t mind)

Cut regulations (so my friends the Koch brothers can pollute as much as they want – then we can be just like China)

Reading his statements makes me believe that Innis is in favor of the “Sequester,” because it forced Congress to take the “hard votes.”

“I like the idea of a five- to 10-year plan that sits on top of the annual budget process and forces Congress’ hand. Congress would have to hit the targets that are laid out.”

The blueprint would function much like the so-called “sequestration” that led to the fiscal cliff budget cuts. “Sequestration was a way that Congress could hide and not take hard votes on the cuts,” he said.

MANCHESTER, NH – Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter (NH-01) has challenged Republican candidates Frank Guinta and Dan Innis to live up to the standard once set by Scott Brown in Massachusetts and agree to keep third-party spending out of New Hampshire.

In a letter sent to former Congressman Guinta and Mr. Innis, Shea-Porter urges them to join with her to limit third-party spending in New Hampshire, returning politics to the place it belongs — in the hands of New Hampshire citizens.

“New Hampshire has always been fertile soil for democracy, but third-party groups are threatening to drown out the voices of average citizens as they flood our airwaves with millions of dollars in negative advertising,” Shea-Porter wrote to Guinta and Innis. “I’m asking you to live up to Scott Brown’s standard, even if he abandoned it, and sign the People’s Pledge to keep third-party spending out of New Hampshire.”

In 2012, Shea-Porter called on Frank Guinta to denounce SuperPAC ads, but he refused. In the 2014 election cycle, third-party groups have already spent more than $1.8 million on negative advertising in New Hampshire, and they’ve pledged to spend more. Despite calls from Public Citizen and Common Cause, Scott Brown has so far refused to sign the People’s Pledge.

Shea-Porter has always practiced campaign finance reform. She does not accept money from Corporate PACs or DC lobbyists. In January, she joined NH Rebellion for the Manchester to Bedford part of the group’s walk across New Hampshire for campaign finance reform. The march was inspired by New Hampshire’s Doris Haddock (“Granny D”), who famously walked across the country in 1999 with a simple sign on her chest: “Campaign Finance Reform.”

Below is a copy of the letter sent to both Mr. Guinta and Mr. Innis who have a primary on September 9th to determine who will be the Republican Party’s candidate in November.

New Hampshire has always been fertile soil for democracy, but third-party groups are threatening to drown out the voices of average citizens as they flood our airwaves with millions of dollars in negative advertising. I’m asking you to live up to Scott Brown’s standard, even if he abandoned it, and sign the People’s Pledge to keep third-party spending out of New Hampshire.

Third-party groups have already spent more than $1.8 million on negative advertising in New Hampshire this cycle, and they’ve pledged to spend more. We know that New Hampshire voters hate these ads, and by working together, we can dramatically reduce them. The time to act is now.

Sign the agreement with me by next week and we will:

Immediately send out a joint press release that third-party money is not welcome in NH-01

Jointly hold a press conference to denounce any third-party that use the airwaves or any form of media ads to attack or support any of us

Jointly sign a public statement to the offending third-party that it stop running the ads immediately

New Hampshire politics is about knocking on doors, shaking hands, and visiting countless communities. It’s not about who can buy an election by spending millions of dollars on negative ads.

Together, we can return politics to the place it belongs, in the hands of New Hampshire citizens. I hope you’ll join me in doing what’s right for our state and our democracy.